Either the stuff is worth reading, or it's not worth reading. It really has nothing to do with how much effort it took the human, or entity, to get it on paper.
Gold that lands in my pocket is just as good as, or better than, gold I have to dig out of the ground.
The author would be better served posting their prompt instead of the cruft of shit the software builds up around it to pad out the length.
Why would that serve the author?
What's interesting is your input: the weights that you applied to the software to make it generate the text it did. When the author gives us an article generated by an LLM, we have to sift for the input – what the author actually wanted to say before the LLM built up the cruft around it – to find the gold.
That's no reason to be anti-ai-generated-code-or-blog-post.
Good quality work is rarely the first draft.
Most humans will write better with AI, and explain the "gold" of their ideas better. You currently have to sift through their messy rendition of their own native language, or worse, non-native speakers trying to convey thoughts.
Of course, mostly those folks don't write blogs.
Anyway, you didn't explain how it serves the author, you explained how it serves the reader.